There’s a lot of talk about how Obama could be perceived as a scary individual, and therefore is not trustworthy of running our country. There is also a doubt as to whether or not he would offer our soldiers the respect they deserve, seeing as how he has never served in combat. But I don’t think just because he has never seen action on the battlefield is enough to say that he doesn’t value our troops. I would think that everybody in America supports our troops.
Then there’s that word play. Barack Hussein Obama. Hussein! “Barack sounds like Iraq!” “Obama is like Osama!” “You can’t say of abomination without Obama!” “The only difference between Obama and Osama is the BS!” “Obama Biden is just a few letters away from Osama bin Laden!”
But none of that really matters. If you watched the presidential debates, and many haven’t apparently, you can see that both Obama and McCain have a clear understanding of our current situation, what happened to get us here, and how we can improve our state going forward. But, there are key differences between McCain and Obama that make it obvious that Obama has an edge, in more ways than one. McCain tends to repeat himself, and when searching for new things to say, has more difficulty than Obama. Indeed, Obama seems to be knowledgeable on pretty much every political subject. When McCain tried to throw him a curveball, pointing out that Obama hadn’t mentioned the situation with vouchers in Washington, DC, Obama immediately replied and made it clear that he knew exactly what was going on there, and that he’d taken that into account in his previous statement.
Obama seems quicker on his feet, more knowledgeable, and less prone to using force to win an argument. There was a debate in which McCain had forcefully interrupted Obama, and talked over him. Obama acted calmly and rationally, and allowed McCain to proceed. So McCain may have “won” that moment by speaking loudly and continually, but when you weigh the ideas that each is expressing, it seems that Obama comes out on top. Perhaps this is evidence of a major difference between the two. Obama did interrupt McCain, or tried to interject rather, when McCain said things that Obama considered to be false. But Obama didn’t continue to speak and try to drown out McCain, whereas McCain had done that at one point to Obama. What if this means that McCain is more likely to use force to resolve a situation than ideas or diplomacy? And wouldn’t that mean that Obama is more for diplomacy and smart thinking, and less for unnecessary war? But what do I know.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
There’s a lot of talk about how Obama could be perceived as a scary individual, and therefore is not trustworthy of running our country. There is also a doubt as to whether or not he would offer our soldiers the respect they deserve, seeing as how he has never served in combat. But I don’t think just because he has never seen action on the battlefield is enough to say that he doesn’t value our troops. I would think that everybody in America supports our troops.
Posted by Guy at 12:58 PM
Monday, October 6, 2008
I read a report a while ago speculating that if the economy were to take the center stage, a Democrat would likely win the Presidential election. On the other hand, if war and military concerns became more prevalent, the Republicans would likely win.
A few months ago McCain was doing great. Military concerns were of great importance. But now the economy is really hurting. Looks like Obama’s got a major chance.
Just this morning I was reading that the $700 billion bailout will apparently take a little while before it produces any helpful results. That delay by itself caused widespread doubt and other negative feelings that led to a drop in the stock market of around 500 to 600 points. The last time I looked at it, it was under 10,000. Around 9,800 or 9,700. Crazy.
I’ve also heard that there are fears America’s economic woes will lead to a cascade effect that affects many nations. So obviously Obama has his work cut out for him.
He certainly does seem a little bit like what I have heard of JFK, in that he is a highly inspirational leader. I hope he can live up to his image, and do everything he says he can.
Posted by Guy at 11:34 AM
Monday, September 22, 2008
I hope the bailout works. I hope our stopgap solutions are enough. I hope they don't make things worse.
I'd read a while back that if the economy takes center stage, Obama would be likely to win. If war took the spotlight, however, McCain would be the stronger candidate.
Lately the news has been shifting quite quickly from huge story to huge story. From hurricanes, to Russia's aggressiveness, to Sarah Palin's experience, to the economy. Whew!
Let's see, what to worry about today... Nuclear War with Russia? Nah. Let's go with money.
I saw a story citing a guy's change in mental attitude based on the negative economic news we've been getting lately. This guy went out and bought a lottery ticket. "If I win, I won't have to worry..."
I'll bet everyone is concerned to some degree. Even lottery winners.
Posted by Guy at 12:16 PM
Monday, September 8, 2008
I used to really enjoy "The Daily Show," but ever since "The Best F****** News Team" made its debut, the show's fun level has decreased for me. I know they're trying to be funny, but a lot of what they do seems awkward. It's neat when someone like Anderson Cooper is shown laughing and then saying, "I'm sorry," because he just ruined a bit in which one of the members of The Daily Show "pretends" to insult him. But I don't think it's nearly as funny when the actors go to a convention and bully regular people, who don't appear aware that it's just a gag.
I still think John Stewart's good, though.
Anyway, according to "The Daily Show," John McCain was shot out of the sky five separate times. The show used that information in a segment that seemed to be emphasizing how McCain wasn't/isn't really all he's supposed to be.
But I think if you can get shot down five times, and keep staying alive, you've got to be doing something right.
Posted by Guy at 11:57 AM
Monday, August 25, 2008
I saw a headline in Yahoo! News about how Obama's choice of Biden for his running mate only emphasizes Obama's own weaknesses, and does nothing to highlight his strengths.
I thought that was a pretty lame idea for an article.
Obama is the candidate for change because he's new. And being new, he has a much shorter list of experience than the other guys. That means that we don't know what his strengths are.
If Obama were an economic expert, then Biden would emphasize Obama's financial prowess by providing contrast with his own military background.
In fact, anything that Obama has a strength in, that Biden doesn't, would automatically be highlighted by choosing Biden. People would say, "Obama chose Biden because Biden's good at X, and we all know Obama's good at Y."
It makes perfect sense to balance out the team's strengths. The only reason taking that action would ever highlight weakness is when the team captain doesn't have any strengths to be contrasted with.
So then, any new expert teammate just highlights how Obama isn't an expert in that teammate's specialty.
The point is, Obama could have chosen pretty much anyone, and that headline about "highlighting his weaknesses" would still have applied.
Posted by Guy at 10:26 AM
Monday, August 11, 2008
I got this email forwarded from the wife of a soldier:
From: Shapiro, Bonnie A Civ USAF ACC 23 WG/SEA
Date: 7/25/2008 7:45:35 AM
Subject: FW: Obama in Afghanistan
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass
along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on
his visit to 'The War Zone'. I wanted to share with you what happened.
He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the
area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here
As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and
didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the
General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty
much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work
out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing
basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to
thank them for their service.
So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back
home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are
going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank
those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the
Dallas Cowboy Cheer leaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to
be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how
anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that
he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and
our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to
know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news
is all fake.
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
That message was provocative. But it's so easy to check online to see if it's accurate.
After quick search I found that CPT Jeffrey S. Porter later retracted his email, saying, "After checking my sources some of the information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong."
Snopes.com features accounts of other service men and women who met Obama and can attest to his friendly behavior. There are pictures backing them up.
There is also a "Department of Defense video [which] shows Senator Obama meeting, talking, and eating breakfast with U.S. troops in Afghanistan":
Wikipedia and the Army Times say pretty much the same.
According to Snopes, "Tales of prominent Democrats snubbing or acting rudely towards military and security personnel ... have been a common form of political rumor over the last few decades." If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.
Posted by Guy at 10:35 AM
Monday, July 28, 2008
I think Obama has set a precedent that future Presidential candidates will seek to repeat. In traveling abroad, and apparently campaigning internationally, Obama has opened up a new era encompassing all nations in the consideration of America's next President.
I believe that after most mentions of Obama's trip in the media, the reporter or anchorman would add that McCain had done something similar a few months ago. And yet Obama got major coverage for it! It makes him seem like the hero of the world. But some people still believe McCain knows more about leading the country.
Last night while channel surfing, I saw Obama's face on at least 7 different networks. Pretty much within a five-minute period. Maybe he said something really important. But it struck me as possibly evident of a polarized media. ...Nah.
Posted by Guy at 11:19 AM
Monday, July 14, 2008
I saw an ad for the McCain Campaign the other day, and it hooked me. The music was great, the background information was solid, and the images were moving. The narrator was fantastic.
At the end, it said something like, "Don't hope for a better tomorrow. Vote for one. McCain."
Then the McCain logo came together swiftly. It was a pretty neat effect.
I enjoy seeing well-made advertising on television, especially when so many commercials seem pretty stupid.
Obviously the "Don't hope, vote," message was a swipe at Obama and his Hope-based platform. But based on the difference in speech quality between Obama and McCain, and the fact that Obama seems to prefer generalities while McCain deals in specifics, the ad seemed completely justified in its jab.
Posted by Guy at 3:17 PM
Monday, June 30, 2008
I was watching a speech by John McCain the other day. I noticed something. Something big. Huge, even.
McCain was citing all kinds of ways he planned to fix every conceivable problem this country is facing. He rattled of solution after solution. And he almost hit the charisma peak that we all want to see. But not quite.
Obama, on the other hand, seems to make bland promises, without really saying how he hopes to accomplish his (and really, our) goals. But he is one heck of a speaker. He can rally up the crowd. But is that what we want? All bark and no bite?
So what if McCain doesn't have super charisma and the energy of youth? He's got experience, knowledge, and well-defined plans for how to make this country greater than ever.
Posted by Guy at 10:33 AM
Saturday, June 14, 2008
I recently heard on The Daily Show that Democrats come up with no ideas, while Republicans come up with bad ideas, which Democrats then make worse.
I just got a political email dealing with something similar. In it, a Republican comes up with an idea, a Democrat copies it, and a second Democrat does nothing but speak about change.
Here's the full text:
John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama were walking down
a Washington DC street when they came upon a homeless man.
John McCain gave the man his business card and told him to come
to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it
to the man.
Hillary was very impressed, so when they came upon another
homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to him and
gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into
John McCain's pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her
administrative fees and gave the homeless man $5.
When they came upon yet another homeless person, Barack told him
to "have hope...change is coming..." and gave him nothing.
Now do you understand the difference?"
Posted by Guy at 1:19 PM
Monday, June 2, 2008
I saw a 3-week old episode of Saturday Night Live a couple days ago, featuring the Indiana Jones Shia LaBeouf (as opposed to the Transformers one).
In that episode, Amy Poehler again portrayed Hillary Clinton, and really slammed her pretty hard. Poehler, as Clinton, talked about how Obama simply wasn't up to her standards. The qualities that Obama lacks, but Clinton possesses are apparently those of a sore loser with no ethical standards, and racist supporters.
Poehler-Clinton said Hillary was spiteful enough that if she didn't win, she wouldn't be super gung-ho about helping Obama win the General Election. But if she did win, Obama would be glad to help her, according to Poehler. Also, Hillary apparently stops at nothing, like playing the Gender Card, while Obama refuses to play the Race Card. Lastly, people who support Clinton are all racist (according to Poehler), but those who support Obama aren't.
This was really weird. I didn't know SNL favored one candidate over another. I thought they'd make fun of all equally. Even the audience seemed to look past Poehler's jokes and see her speech for what it really was - an endorsement of Obama.
But what really struck me as interesting was how most of what she said could have been flipped around and applied in reverse direction. She could have said that all supporters of Obama are racist, that Obama has played the race card in some fashion, subtly or not, and that he would be a sore loser. After all, speculating about a candidate's potential future actions leaves room for any conclusion. You could argue, "Oh, Hillary's no good because if she was ever in a hostage situation, and a crocodile was pointing a gun at her, she'd use the nearest child as a human shield." The point is that just because Poehler says Hillary won't (future tense) support Obama, doesn't mean that would happen.
It's so weird. I see stuff in different places highlighting one aspect of one candidate, when the other candidate seems to have (or likely has) the same characteristic. And yet the article or story treats their issue as being incredibly important. Like Yahoo.
Yahoo said, "Oh, wow, look everybody, Obama planned for the long haul, but Hillary didn't!" I would assume both candidates did pretty much equal planning, and just because a reporter doesn't get answers, doesn't mean those answers don't exist.
Like, "Hillary and co., did you guys plan way far ahead?"
"Hey everybody, she said, 'No!'"
I'll bet Hillary had some guy somewhere working on a long-term plan just in case any short-term fast-win goals didn't get met.
I keep hearing about why Obama is better, but it's not really concrete stuff. It's more like, "He's better because the general consensus says so, and here's some soft evidence." I'd like some hard evidence, and that's rare. It really comes from hearing each candidate speak, and seeing their actions. But most of the stuff has all been hearsay. I'm kind of tired of it.
And SNL's point seemed to be, "Hey, Hillary's bad, so who you gonna vote for? Only 1 option..."
Oh, guess they mean I can't vote for McCain...
Posted by Guy at 11:03 AM
Monday, May 19, 2008
A few months ago, it was Hillary vs. Obama, and a couple of times you'd see someone else like Huckabee or Edwards. What I'm referring to are the square blocks of ads that show Presidential candidates' faces and then ask a question. "Who will win? Click here!" A decent marketing tactic.
Anyway, the most recent one I've seen shows Obama on the left, smiling toward the right, showing his teeth, and McCain on the right, smiling toward the left, no teeth.
Obama looks friendly, but the shape of his face seems almost...evil. Sure, this has nothing to do with anything. But I think his ears and chin seem a tad longer than ideal.
Take a look:
Posted by Guy at 3:35 PM
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
I saw the title of an article on Yahoo talking about how a storm killed 22,000 people in Myanmar. I didn't read the article. But I did have a thought.
What if someone nuked a city? And the cyclone story is a cover-up?
The reason my mind went into conspiracy-land was because there was an episode of Smallville on recently showcasing government lies. Clark Kent was experiencing an earth in which he'd never existed, where Lex had become President.
Lex Luthor told America that an enemy was launching nukes at us, so we had to retaliate. But no such enemy action had occurred. It was a sham, a lie in order to justify a preemptive strike by the U.S. against the enemy.
And with other stories like "Wag the Dog," it makes me wonder how much of "the truth" in the news we take for granted.
Honestly though, I figure the cyclone in Myanmar really did occur. I'd rather believe in the news than not. For all I know one of you reading this had firsthand experience with the horrific storm. I don't mean to offend.
Posted by Guy at 12:52 PM
Monday, April 28, 2008
I was watching an episode of "House" on USA last night. On a side note, USA now has a green logo that appears in the lower right hand of the screen, like many other channels. Anyway, the actor who portrayed Miles Dyson in "Terminator 2" was going to run for President on "House" once he regained his health. He said he wouldn't win. House said why run if he wouldn't win? Dyson alluded to the idea that he would be running for a purpose other than victory. He wanted to create positive change by convincing as many people as he could that a black man could be the President.
That made me wonder what Obama's intentions are. I think he really could be elected. Maybe he was coached (or decided on his own) to continue the race as long as possible in order to convince as many people as possible that he, a black man, is a viable option for the Presidency. So even if he doesn't win, he'll go down in history as a door-opener for the black community. Awesome! He can't lose!
This makes me wonder, then, if it is appropriate to say, "Stop it Obama and Hillary!" I can understand Obama's goal, and Hillary's too. Why not allow them as much time as they need?
Posted by Guy at 11:21 AM
Monday, April 21, 2008
I was watching the news the other night, and the polling figures for some place came up. Hillary had around 49% of the people's favor, while Obama had 48%.
I thought to myself that this seemed almost like it was designed in such a way that a child could grasp it.
I mean the fact that a woman, who if elected would be the first woman President, and a black man, who if elected would be the first black President, are competing on such nearly perfectly even terms just seems like it's too good to be true. Like it was scripted. Cliché, even.
It's weird that after all these years of people wondering when we'd have a lady President, or a black President, we've got two terrific options all of a sudden, forced to compete against each other.
It's like making a movie about Batman vs. James Bond.
Posted by Guy at 4:11 PM
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The gist I get is that the system is unnecessarily complex, but definitely can be boiled down to a simple question of who has the most money.
Money can get you behavioral experts who coach you to be the person the citizens love. Money can pay for surgery and haircuts. Money gets you signs, ad time, good directors and actors for those ads, and maybe even undercover actors seeded among the citizenry in an effort to persuade the unsure.
[Candidate gets an idea from reading this -- "That's it! Covert political agents..."]
Posted by Guy at 2:08 PM
Monday, April 7, 2008
Not with money.
Hillary Clinton was recently telling a story about a woman and her problems with a hospital. Those problems led to the death of the woman and her unborn child.
The hospital claimed that Hillary's version of the story wasn't accurate.
Now we find that that is true, Hillary's story wasn't 100% correct. But the facts have come to light, and the situation described in the story is pretty much the same as it truly was in reality.
Hillary could continue telling the story with the newly updated details...
But the hospital asked her to stop. She said ok.
So, did the power and influence of the hospital cause Hillary to abandon communicating things to the public that are of public concern?
Could Hillary be manipulated while in office to keep secrets from us, and withhold information about situations that will become harmful if we're not kept in the know?
Or is she simply letting the media tell everybody else the rest of the hospital story?
Posted by Guy at 8:53 PM
Friday, April 4, 2008
I can't believe it. I was honestly expecting Edwards to return as a major player in the Democratic Party.
Sure, he was before he dropped out. And some people thought Obama and Hillary might team up.
But then they got to attacking each other, and Edwards seemed like he might be able to fill the role of VP should Obama win and reject Hillary, or should Hillary win and reject Obama.
He didn't specify who he supports (at least not at the time when I first heard about this). I think that's just because no one is on top yet. If he supports Obama and Hillary wins, that would weaken her nomination because the 3rd place Democratic candidate wasn't behind her. It makes sense for him to wait before "making up his mind."
Could he change his mind later and become VP anyway?
Posted by Guy at 8:46 PM
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Obama said as far as he's concerned, she can run as long as she wants.
Bill Clinton said let's have some good old fashioned arguments, and that will strengthen the party. In fact, the Democrats are guaranteed to win.
Some of the media says that Hillary vs. Obama makes McCain stronger.
I saw a piece of internet art that insinuated Hillary pursuing the Democratic nomination to the very end would make the object of her desire irrelevant.
Posted by Guy at 9:15 PM
Monday, March 31, 2008
Four years ago when John Kerry ran for President, I thought that none of the major candidates was really great. I wanted someone younger, someone more idealistic. Someone like Obama!
Now we have him, and yet there are serious doubts harbored by some as to whether he can really be counted on to represent America. After all, his name is Barack Hussein Obama. Barack sounds like Iraq (meaningless?), Hussein, the last name of Saddam, and Obama sounds like Osama. That's three in a row, an unlikely coincidence.
Could he be Muslim? Came out of nowhere, incredibly charismatic, idealistic. Willing to sell out?
I want to believe in him.
Posted by Guy at 8:28 PM
Friday, March 28, 2008
I read that Romney is now helping McCain. Formerly, they were bitter rivals. Now they are working together in the hopes that their cooperation will further cement McCain's pull with Republicans.
Obama and Hillary haven't been too friendly with each other so far. They've been competing. Some say it is difficult to imagine any kind of union between the two once one establishes him/herself as the definite party leader. Still, seeing it work out between Romney and McCain, I'll bet a similar Democratic union is possible as well.
Here's a thought: What if the Democrats consistently fail when it looks like they're guaranteed success on purpose? Could it be a...Conspiracy?
"No dummy, for this reason..."
Oh, it's so simple. I just couldn't see it. Wait! You're part of the conspiracy too!
Posted by Guy at 1:45 AM
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
She gave a speech. Said she visited a country and had to dodge bullets. Then a video surfaced. Showed her visiting that country. No bullets.
I recently saw a speech she gave regarding her previous claims. She said she had a different memory of the event.
I wish she would have gone into further detail. It makes since that you might get two different visits abroad confused. Maybe she had to dodge bullets in another country. What country, then? When? Is there footage?
Her just saying she had a different memory, and leaving it at that... it makes me think that maybe she originally decided to tell an outright lie. Or maybe she was told to. I figure when you're that high up politically, you've got coaches and managers left and right, planning everything out in advance for you.
It does make me question her. If she lied, then she's a liar. Can't be trusted. If she was telling what she believed to be the truth, then she has a faulty memory. In that case, how can we trust her to remember the information she needs in order to do her job well? If she was told to lie, then we can't trust her staff, her choice of staff, and again, we can't trust her because she willingly went along with it.
But Obama said some erroneous stuff to. I guess we can't trust anybody.
Posted by Guy at 5:02 PM
Monday, March 24, 2008
I heard somewhere that McCain used to be a Democrat. What if he secretly still is? What if he's running a campaign that bases itself on ideas similar to those of George Bush, but with enough individuality and change so as to make electing McCain seem like a good idea? What if some genius out there figured that if most of America would willingly reelect Bush for Term 2, then they'd probably go for McCain as a Republican in 2008?
What if he is elected President, and then reassumes his true identity? What would he do? Maybe he's a Super Democrat. Maybe he'll pull us out of Iraq in Day One, instead of leaving the doors of possibility open so wide that we might stay there for 10,000 years...
Posted by Guy at 3:39 PM
Saturday, March 22, 2008
I was listening to Obama speak after Bill Richardson handed over his endorsement, and I found myself attracted to the ideas Obama was using. He basically spoke of change, how things were going to be different next year, that he was going to fix the economy, end the war, fix the energy crisis, and make things better in every conceivable way.
But from a logic standpoint, what is he really saying?
- Things are bad.
- I will fix them.
- I won't say how.
We all so badly want someone we can believe in, since Bush has effectively let everyone down as far as they're concerned. And faced with all these problems, we're desperate for a solution.
For a second, I found myself afraid of what President Obama might do in office. During his speech, he mentioned the idea of telling us who we should be, and how this nation should be run. Sure, a Prez's job is to run the country, and sure, JFK told us we could all be better people than we were. But hearing Obama mention how he might one day dictate our lives... that just sounded weird.
He didn't go into too much detail. When you leave a statement like that general, it usually ends up being interpreted based on other factors. So I'm assuming all the fanatics behind him were giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that him telling us who to be is really him inspiring us to be better.
But someone against Obama, who sees him as all talk and no walk, a puppet or pawn of hidden forces, might figure that when he says he'll tell us who to be, he means his Presidency will open up a can of Fascist, Totalitarian worms...
And that's scary. If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.
Posted by Guy at 3:43 PM
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
I just watched a brand new "South Park," featuring a story about Britney Spears. [SPOILER ALERT] It was told keeping her feelings in mind, and showcasing how cruel paparazzi and society in general can be. The continued negative media attention led to Spears' attempt at suicide on the show. She survived, and it was later revealed that the media coverage was an outright attempt to get her to kill herself.
Initially, the episode conveys the idea that most people are stupid in that they don't see or care about how their negative gossip stories affect Britney. Then later, it turns out there's a whole sinister plot with roots in human sacrifice.
In the real world, I think it's just human curiosity and fascination with lame stuff taken to a pretty sick extreme. I'm wondering if there should be government regulations regarding the right of the individual to be left alone by the media. Freedom of Speech should remain, but I'm thinking about guys with cameras stalking your car. That shouldn't be happening.
Posted by Guy at 7:55 PM
Monday, March 17, 2008
From much of what I've heard, McCain has some good ideas. I recently saw a video where people were singing McCain quotes and then looking like he continually blew their mind with his expectation of future wars.
Really, I think only an idiot would rule out the possibility.
But I think their point was that we shouldn't automatically accept the idea of conflict as a given. They didn't come right out and say it, but I'm guessing they figure if we really work for peace, peace can be achieved.
One thing that struck me was the duration of our stay in Iraq. I've heard that it could be up to 100 years before we can withdraw. I had been turning this over in my mind, wondering if it really was necessary. To some extent, it does make sense. Conflict in the middle east has had thousands of years (right?) to set in and become the norm. So we make a 5-year change, and it's quickly washed away by the sands of tradition. But what if we stayed there for an extended period? After a few generations, the newest Iraqis would probably have a greater chance of accepting a peaceful and democratic society.
But in the video, there's a quote where McCain says something about 1,000 years or 10,000 years. I don't think it would be necessary to "stay" that long, because I'm guessing that within 1,000 years the world will be unified and peace will be achieved. Or we'll all be dead. But if we had to stay up to that point... It makes me wonder...
Common sense seems to say, "Let's get out of Iraq right now." But if we leave without "finishing the job" and making them understand the benefits of peace, would they resent us and continue to harbor dreams of revenge? It does seem possible. But then again, maybe we're causing that by just being there right now. It's a conundrum. I don't think there's a clear-cut solution that will satisfy everybody everywhere. Once we make up our mind one way or another, we'll have to live with the consequences.
Posted by Guy at 1:18 PM
Friday, March 14, 2008
What if the U.S. economic troubles, combined with a shortage of oil and Global Warming, lead to major world-wide problems? What if someone comes along claiming to have the solution to those problems? Would a One World Order make sense as a solution? I'll bet it could be argued that way...
If all nations were working together in every area, there'd be no shortage of information, no guesswork involved. With cooperation on a global scale, we might be able to fix each nation's issues easily. But once all the problems are solved, does the "order" that has been imposed remain in place? Do any and all regulations that have been enacted stay active? Are more regulations put into effect?
It's pretty scary to think about, what with all the doomsday scenarios connected with the One World Order idea. But what if it's ultimately necessary, no matter what path history takes? And what if a unified world can achieve total peace?
Posted by Guy at 7:47 PM
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
I kind of think a truly free market is probably the way to go. Whenever too much control is imposed on a system, new developments that might improve that system have a greater degree of difficulty in coming to fruition. It's like why Communism didn't work out so well. Without the need for competition, prices could remain high, and value could remain low. In a cut-throat, survival of the fittest, competitive economy, the strong corporations survive, and continue to strive to produce more, better, faster, and cheaper. The consumer benefits, and therefore society as a whole benefits.
But what if some regulation is necessary to prevent major economic catastrophes? I don't know... I think our economy is widespread enough to survive turbulence. But if the Great Depression II happens, regulations would probably look pretty good.
Posted by Guy at 6:42 PM
Monday, March 10, 2008
The way it looked then, Hillary saw Obama unfit, and Obama saw Hillary unfit. No way they'd team up.
The way it looked yesterday, Hillary saw Obama unfit on his own, and Obama saw Hillary unfit on her own, but if they teamed up, they'd compensate for each other's problems.
The way it looks today, Obama doesn't want to play second fiddle to anyone, least of all Hillary. According to the polls, he may not have to be VP in a Hillary-Obama team-up.
The way it might end up looking, the new ticket could be Obama for President, Hillary for Vice President.
I just heard on the news something like "McCain has raised 5 million dollars. Obama and Hillary have together raised 90 million." Something like that... The point is, Obama and Hillary seem to each be in the money. If they team up, their funds will heavily, heavily outweigh McCain's.
But money isn't everything...
Posted by Guy at 1:30 PM
Friday, March 7, 2008
I get the impression that whatever level of government you work in, if you're a politician, you're to some degree "above" the common people. You work in a somewhat nice building. You get paid a decent salary. You make decisions that impact many people. Leadership puts a politician on a sort of pedestal, and good leadership leads to a high salary, which leads to a lifestyle far different from that of the common middle class.
So if successful politicians can dine and stay at expensive restaurants and hotels, maybe their mindset is "seduced" into changing? How accurate can your representation of a voter's mindset be when your life is totally different?
Posted by Guy at 8:36 PM
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
I know, this is way "out there," but it does seem interesting that the Prophecy of the Popes and the legend behind the Mayan Calendar both seem to point toward a major calamity in the near future. If our next Pope will witness the end of the world, maybe 2012 really will be a year of major importance in human history. And the Book of Revelations says that a charismatic leader will solve problems and assume power before he reveals that he's truly the Antichrist. We sure have a lot of problems now. So if we elect someone who pulls off miracle after supposed miracle, could we be doomed? Hmm...If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.
Posted by Guy at 4:09 PM
Monday, March 3, 2008
I wish I had kept record of them so I could back up the claim that they're dumb. Oh well. I guess I'll just provide some examples based on the ones I've seen, but not exactly the same as the real thing.
"Clinton vows to turn her campaign around"
"Obama plans his next move"
"Clinton resolves to continue on"
"McCain wows supporter"
Stuff like that. Really stupid obvious stuff that's common sense. Of course the 2nd place Democratic candidate wants to turn things around and rise to 1st place. Of course Obama's planning his next move. They all are, all the time. Of course Clinton's going to continue. She's not far enough behind to quit. And of course McCain's going to "wow" his supporters. Supporters are most often wowed by the person they support!
It just makes me think back to something I saw on TV a little after one of the early primaries. One reporter was questioning whether the media in general was giving the election too much coverage. Another said yes indeed, and added that a lot of the recent "news" was really crap -- pure speculation. Pointless, and a waste of time for us, the audience. Who cares what might happen?
If we're working for a campaign, we might use speculation to plan out our future actions. But since most people aren't part of that whole process, speculation is meaningless, and far from entertaining. Skip to the end.
It's the same with the headlines at Yahoo. Titles like "Obama answers voter questions" imply that the "news" articles are pure filler. Pure common sense, a rehash of stories that are told every four years. The only things that change are the names.
Posted by Guy at 1:44 PM
Friday, February 29, 2008
Fox News, "fair and balanced." The fact that they feel it necessary to say that makes me question just how fair and balanced they are. I think their logic is, "People think we're unfair, unbalanced, so let's tell them they're wrong." The Daily Show usually seems totally unbiased, because they seem to make fun of all sides equally. Or do they?
Sometimes I find myself wondering why Jon Stewart went one way instead of another. Those times are rare, but when they happen, I worry that all the people who trust the Fake News will get swayed one direction not out of logical argument, but simply because of faith and belief in what Jon Stewart says.
I hope he can't be bought.
Posted by Guy at 5:37 PM
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I don't know......
I mean we all want change. Of course. Why else hold elections? But Colbert seems to present too great a change. If he were elected President, what might happen? Would other nations not take us as seriously? Would his ability to defend this country come into question? Would it embolden certain parties that should not be emboldened?
I think it might.
Posted by Guy at 6:53 PM
Monday, February 25, 2008
A while back, the media was saying that this was going to be one important election, in which we the American people had the opportunity to turn things around once and for all with a great new President and a bright new future. I thought, "No matter who we vote for, it's all going to be great!" Hillary seemed awesome, Obama seemed awesome, Edwards seemed awesome, Huckabee showed potential, Giuliani seemed capable, Romney seemed moral, McCain seemed experienced... It all showed so much promise.
But recently I've been seeing a growing number of posts on the web about how each candidate is deeply flawed, and does their best to hide those flaws from the public. I really thought things might get better, but maybe I was deceived. Maybe I was wrong.
I heard one person say a long time ago that all the efforts Bush has undertaken to expand the power of the White House would not be proven futile should Hillary win, because she'd continue the trend and expand her power to the point where cameras end up everywhere (or something like that). Some people are pretty sure Obama's going to be the Democratic candidate now, so I wonder if he'd do that? What if Obama ends up being the idealistic speech-giving new guy who is so new that he can't stand up to the pressures of the preexisting government clique that says, "Do like we do or else?" He'd become powerless to live up to all his speeches. If we elect him, I hope he can walk the walk he's talked.
Posted by Guy at 11:31 AM
Friday, February 22, 2008
Channel surfing last night, I caught some of the Comedy Central political cartoon "Little Bush." I figure it's not a really old rerun because the ending emphasized how John McCain is supposed to be a puppet to George Bush. I've heard that point made before. That seems to be the main reason to dismiss McCain. But I'm not sure if I believe it. When I heard him speak, I got the distinct impression that he was not like Bush. Plus, he used to be a Democrat!
Anyway, I thought, "Gee, 'Little Bush' used to be a bit more appealing when it was uniting the anti-Bush citizens. But now it's trying to use that sentiment to dismiss a candidate who hasn't even done anything yet." It's not like McCain has lied to us and then taken us to war. "But he will!" someone says. Yeah, right. Maybe we do need to stay in the Middle East for decades.
Yahoo news seems to lately be highlighting allegations against McCain for various acts of wrongdoing. So is Yahoo at fault for focusing on the negative aspects for McCain and not for all candidates? Or are the Democrats purposely tearing their one Republican opponent down? I don't think Huckabee would do that, specifically because the vibe I get from the Republican party is that they're all in this together now. Obviously they'd have to be, given the unappealing impression of the party at this point.
Posted by Guy at 11:02 AM
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What if the satellite is really just an excuse to test our missile defense capabilities? Even if the satellite is a legitimate concern, which it may very well be, shooting it down from far below will be of potentially major importance.
We do this right, and the world says, "Wow, America is tough. I need to work out more..."
And they begin an arms race, that culminates in nuclear war.
Or not. I hope not.
Posted by Guy at 2:03 PM
Monday, February 18, 2008
Well, it made me think anyway. They played "Hail to the Chief" in a sort of marching band style that gave me the impression they didn't really care about the President or the authority contained therein. Of course, if we all met the President in person, it would be quite an experience. An honor for many, even for many naysayers. Still, it made me wonder if the events of the past 7 years have given us the impression that our President isn't really "for us."
I thought, "Why doesn't the commercial seem truly Patriotic? It seems to be paying lip service to the ideas of national pride, and pride in our leader. Why don't we all feel inspired?"
Maybe we need to wait another year. I look forward to a time when everything makes sense and we can openly share legitimate positive feelings concerned with those in charge and the direction of our country.
Posted by Guy at 4:16 PM
Friday, February 15, 2008
Ever since I heard Mitt Romney on the CNN YouTube debate answer the question of whether water-boarding was torture (i.e., "Let's not say...Might overinform the terrorists"), I knew he wasn't the right candidate for me. I liked McCain's answer better (i.e., "Yes, it is torture, we don't need it, and shouldn't use it") and McCain seemed to have some good ideas in other areas (i.e., "I'll make us energy independent in 5 years."). For these reasons, I decided McCain was a superior candidate to Romney. McCain may not be the best candidate, and indeed, many think he's just like Bush. But in my eyes, Romney was even less an ideal.
This is why it seemed odd that Romney kept going for so long. He seemed sure, sincere, and confident. Of course, every candidate must feel, appear, and behave that way, not only to convince themselves that they have a shot, but to convince their audience, the American public. Still, it just seemed wrong to me, because I was so set on McCain over Romney.
But now, finally, Romney's out, and he supports McCain. Just a few weeks and months ago, few within certain groups would have guessed, or even admitted to the possibility of this outcome. Indeed, many would call it impossible to predict. If I had asked certain people, "Do you think this will happen?" They'd have said, "Anything can happen. It's all up in the air. But as far as we're concerned, Romney will be the winner."
Yes, that's the problem. 100% sincerity at the moment, 100% inaccuracy in hindsight. And this doesn't just happen in election campaigns either. It keeps coming up in politics in general. "So and so said this, got us to believe, and was proven wrong..." It's too bad about how it has become so complex to hold someone accountable when they have been verifiably inconsistent.
Posted by Guy at 10:22 AM
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I heard on "The Daily Show" about how religious Huckabee is. He himself tries to play it down, saying he doesn't go out of his way to flaunt his faith. But there are campaign ads, made by his campaign, that do, in fact, go out of their way to bring up his religious beliefs. One of those beliefs is the belief that evolution did not occur.
I believe a moral President can do a nation good. And it's usually good to admit what you don't know, especially when you're in charge. Faith can be used as an argument for allowing possibilities that science can't plan for. However, when irrational ideas lead to crucial and sometimes deadly decisions, then I think that represents going too far.
I do believe some form of faith and morality is good, and has its place in government. But when you try to define particular aspects and lay down rules whose only proof of being correct is tradition, that's when you enter dangerous territory. Honestly, Huckabee seemed more appealing to me when his religious beliefs were hazy.
Posted by Guy at 9:55 AM
Monday, February 11, 2008
I was watching a Mike Birbiglia comic special (“What I Should Have Said Was Nothing”) and Mike said he didn't know whether George Bush was Evil or Stupid.
I wonder if that's how a lot of people feel.
I've heard the Bush has looked to past great Presidents for inspiration. Some theorize that Bush believes his actions will be justified in 50 years. With time, America will come to understand that at this moment in history, we made the right decisions as a nation. We took the correct course of action, and although we weren't too thrilled about it, things all worked out.
That theory presumes that Bush knows what he's doing, and isn't evil at all.
So there are three options. Either Bush doesn't have a clue, he does but he believes it's all for the best, or he does and he doesn't care that we're all screwed.
Posted by Guy at 8:26 PM
Friday, February 8, 2008
Early on, I made up my mind that of all the Republican candidates, McCain was my favorite. I like his plan for making this country Oil Independent in 5 years. I liked how he was clear about how water boarding is torture. I didn't like how Romney's answer regarding water boarding included the idea that we should keep our interrogation tactics secret, and didn't mention whether or not water boarding was torture. That obviously meant that torture or not, waterboarding would be used in the future under Romney if deemed "necessary."
I liked McCain's "Straight Talk," where he would plainly state things as he knew them or saw them. That directly contrasted with the Bush policy of, "I know what I'm doing, don't worry about it."
For the past few months on the net, I've seen political ads with pictures of Hillary and Obama. Today I saw one with McCain. I guess they had to wait until he was popular, or until it finally became obvious that he already was.
Posted by Guy at 11:30 AM
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
I've been wanting to watch some of that new "Frank TV" show, but it's rarely on. Thankfully it was on last night, but it seems like "Frank TV" got shafted somehow. I remember seeing all kinds of ads for it, and then it just fizzled when the Writers Strike came into being. But you can still see Frank here and there.
On a comedy special, he impersonated George Bush. He is very, very skilled at this. Yesterday I saw him do a commercial for, I believe it was Dish Network. There was Frank, and Frank as George Bush, side by side. Bush said with Dish Network, you can "Divver" (DVR), "Recordify," and "Recordificate." It was funny.
I was feeling bad for Frank, and all comic impersonators, because of all the new media frenzy regarding the "up-and-coming" politicians. I thought, "If Bush is on his way out, then all the comedians have to come up with new bits." But I keep forgetting, we've still got a whole year left for Frank to do his thing. Hopefully TBS will let us see it!
Posted by Guy at 9:47 AM
Monday, February 4, 2008
I saw her on C-SPAN, and she is fantastic. I know she won't be directly leading the country if her husband wins, but I like her ideas. She said we need to fix public education, and get it back to the place it was at when she was a student who moved from public school to Princeton to Harvard Law.
She spoke a lot about the shifting bar in society. I believe the general idea is that the standards for doing well in life are increasing so rapidly that just when you think you've got a foothold, you lose it. You work hard, study hard, take all the extracurricular activities, but can't afford to go to the best college possible. Or you're a single parent, trying to make ends meet, and you work hard, but your job just doesn't pay enough to raise a family on. She was able to eloquently highlight a few of the nation's problems, especially regarding the economy. However, I didn't listen long enough to hear the solutions she proposed, if any. She seemed to be largely focused on what's wrong, and not on how to make it right. But acknowledging a problem is the first step toward solving it. However, we already know our economy is in the toilet.
Anyway, it was the first time I got to hear her speak, and I like her point of view. She seems hopeful for a brighter tomorrow.
Posted by Guy at 8:42 AM
Friday, February 1, 2008
I saw on the Daily Show last night that Giuliani is out of the race for President, and is now endorsing McCain. I actually got the vibe that they were teaming up, and Giuliani would become McCain’s running mate. After all, with Giuliani by his side, McCain was compelled to throw out a reference to 9/11, something Giuliani is considered by some as being notorious for. However, it seems McCain will simply absorb Giuliani’s power. Maybe he’ll channel the engines of “Tested. Proven. Ready.” into something else.
I also heard that Obama’s campaign looks at McCain and says he’d make an ideal opponent. McCain represents (I guess by his age and race) the “old style,” while Obama (through those same factors) is shiny and new. Just because something is traditional, though, doesn’t make it wrong. Sure, Bush is older and white, and he is no longer popular with everybody. But that doesn’t mean that another older, white gentleman couldn’t do a killer job. In fact, what’s wrong with the progress Bill Clinton stint as President made? He sure helped us out with the deficit problem. It seems like the campaigners want to stereotype older white guys as being bad. But doing that could shut us off to the possibilities of electing one of those guys who legitimately has the skills, plans, and desire to turn this country around.
It’s funny, http://www.joinrudy2008.com/ doesn’t mention (at least up front) that the quest has ended. I wonder if they still accept donations?
Posted by Guy at 4:00 PM
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
When I read that John Edwards is pulling out of the Presidential campaign, I had a few thoughts. These possibilities seem remote, but not entirely unimaginable.
Hillary or Obama gets elected. They do a good job, but faced with a ton of problems (peak in oil production, ailing economy, global warming, nuclear war, etc.), don’t quite make things perfect. So the American public gets desperate. Edwards comes back. Rises to power. Ushers in Armageddon.
This theory is mainly based on the similarity between Edwards’ appearance and that of Sam Neill as Damien Thorn in “Omen III: The Final Conflict.”
Posted by Guy at 3:16 PM
Monday, January 28, 2008
I saw on “The Daily Show” that hours after George W. Bush announced an economic recovery plan, the stock market fell a few hundred points. I’m somewhat doubtful a quick fix will be enough to dig us all out. There was an episode of Saturday Night Live a long time ago when a guy impersonated Bush, and some of what he said seems incredibly relevant today. It was along the lines of, “That’s why I keep lowering taxes. Money going out, no money coming in, and it all evens out!”
I think the President has been operating under a similar process. Lowering taxes means the government has access to less cash, so it borrows to spend more and more. The American government is like a teenager with a credit card, no job, and an expensive appetite. Pretty soon that teen goes bankrupt.
I feel like even if we all get $1000 as part of the Recovery plan, we’ll hoard it due to continued fears and doubts regarding economic recovery, and it won’t do any good.
Posted by Guy at 4:28 PM
Saturday, January 26, 2008
For a while, in some circles, the idea was (and is), "We need a black President."
In others, it was (and is), "We need a lady President."
I haven't heard too much of either goal in the media lately, though I'm sure many groups and individuals still hold onto them. I think what the media has been doing is taking each candidate as the sum of their accomplishments and capabilities (i.e., "We need a good President"), and not as someone defined by race or gender. However, it is still put forth that those two issues do carry some sway in the public consciousness (of course), both here and abroad.
Now, we've got two candidates, both highly attractive and capable, who fit the respective bills. And they're at war with one another? Weird...
I heard that some people are against the Hillary vs. Obama feud because they foresee the possibility of a Hillary-Obama joint ticket.
Could negative tactics on both sides weaken their power over voters, so that John Edwards and the Republican candidates get a better shot at victory?
Posted by Guy at 2:24 PM
Thursday, January 24, 2008
About an hour ago, I read an article at this link that has since been changed.
At the time, the article seemed very scary, because it included the words "secret court" in both the headline, and the first paragraph. It was about how the Senate decided not to expand a secret court's power to keep sure the government doesn't overstep its bounds when surveilling U.S. citizens. Now the whole feel of the article is different! Why?
Could Yahoo! have offended someone from the government? Sure, you might say, "They were just doing a simple update." Well, I'm pretty sure the timestamp for when I originally read the article said, "2 hours, [?] minutes ago." Reading it a few minutes ago, it says, "1 hour, 3 minutes ago." If they wanted to post a new article, why use the old URL? Why the change?
Posted by Guy at 4:48 PM
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Who is he endorsing?
I think it was the "Colbert Report" last night when I learned that Fred Thompson told one newscaster he would make an important announcement, and then failed to deliver. One theory as to what the announcement was had him declaring he's out of the race for President, and that he supports McCain.
Well, today we know that he is out, but he has yet to declare support for any of his former rivals. With him gone, maybe things will start to get a little more clear cut, as far as the Republican candidates are concerned.
Posted by Guy at 4:21 PM
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Right now, the campaigning tactic seems to be: go to each state, and appeal to that demographic's voters. Change yourself from state to state, to suit each group of people's interests and attitudes. This takes a lot of money to do effectively, as it entails a great deal of travel, paraphernalia, and tons of in-person meetings.
Then, when the President is elected, he/she addresses the nation as one, on camera.
So here's my thought: A candidate could save money, and make contact with far more voters, by making daily video logs. He could say, "Greetings America," in one, and in another, focus on South Carolina, or New Hampshire, or whatever. It would be fairly inexpensive to add this tactic to a campaign, and yet it has the potential to produce massive results.
A poor candidate might focus solely on video campaigning. A wealthier one could simply add it to his/her arsenal. I'll bet this will be standard by 2012.
Posted by Guy at 3:43 PM
Thursday, January 17, 2008
And yet, it seems you just can't separate the two. Or won't be able to pretty soon.
Every day I see ads for loans on TV. It makes me sick. With all the woes to our economy brought on by loan and mortgage scams, how can these people keep advertising this stuff? The people who go for it have already proven that they won't be able to make up the debt, what with the huge interest being charged. So the Fed will slash rates again. But for the benefit of what group? The middle class? Probably not.
What happens when we keep devaluing our currency? Will the Euro become the new world standard?
Posted by Guy at 7:51 PM
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
I think so.
I heard about Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg's possible bid for the White House, and it seems like a perfect waste of time and money. My mind's already set on a clique of candidates, and I'll bet that most people are in the same boat. Even if they're undecided, I don't think a new guy would have that big a chance. The current candidates are just too appealing to give a stranger a shot at mega-popularity.
But, to his credit, Bloomberg is said to have no plans whatsoever to run. Wikipedia says, "He has repeatedly denied any plans to run and says the news media has concocted his possible presidential bid."
Posted by Guy at 4:17 PM
Friday, January 11, 2008
All the candidates are touting how capable they are of creating change. Anyone can change something. The trick is to make a good change.
George W. Bush changed a lot of things. Look where we are now. It took change to get us here!
We want a change from the way things are. Most American's feel we're on the wrong track. Let's change that. Let's change -- Presidents!
Candidate X could be elected, and then institute wide and sweeping changes that we all blindly asked for, simply because they are making things new and different. Trouble is, those changes might include implanting chips in everyone so the government can track us at all times. That qualifies as a massive change.
But in this case, a bad one. So do we want change? Or do we want good change?
Be careful what you wish for...
Posted by Guy at 3:37 PM
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
I've encountered the sentiment that if one particular candidate is not elected, the world will go to Hell. I don't believe this is the case. Voters lose hope, faith, and the will to vote when there is no one "good" enough. If we had just one candidate who was good, and the rest were not, then it might be appropriate to put that one on a pedestal. But really, I think they're all good. All the headliners, anyway. The frontrunners, and silver and bronze guys too.
Then, when you go beyond that, you might be reaching. But the top-tier candidates aren't alone in their excellence. I think each could do a good job. They all know what's wrong, and they've got definite ideas on how to fix things. So to say "If you all don't vote for my candidate, we're screwed," I think is faulty.
Posted by Guy at 5:57 PM
Monday, January 7, 2008
When I first heard, "tamper-proof biometric document," it was in reference to dealing with illegal immigrants. My first thought was, "Chip in your hand." But a quick search on google revealed that the phrase is being taken far more seriously that I thought. It looks like we're going to have to deal with chips in humans no matter what. Bummer.
I guess the idea is to catalogue all people, and track them with satellites. Once you do that, you can easily find lost hikers, kidnap victims, escaped convicts and illegal immigrants. But isn't it a fascist technique?
Posted by Guy at 1:53 PM
Friday, January 4, 2008
Maybe. Talk about backfire!
In the past, I've spoken with Obama supporters in person. They came a-knocking. And I've spoken on the phone. They came a-calling. A few days ago, one of them called again.
At 9:00 at night.
The young woman sounded like she was in college. She said, "You're an Obama supporter, is that correct?"
I said no, I'm not sure who I'm supporting.
She said, "Oh, well we must have you on the wrong list. What's your #1 issue?"
I said I didn't have one. No one issue matters most to me. There's a lot of them that are important.
She said, "Ok, well do you plan on voting in the Democrat Primary?"
I said I was undecided as to whether to vote Democrat or Republican.
She said, "All right, well one of the things I like most about Obama is that he's bipartisan, a uniter, and he can bring lots of different groups of people together."
That's the exact thing the previous caller had said, word for word. I'm paraphrasing what she said, but hearing it on the phone, it was apparent that the callers are instructed to read from a script. And here I thought the first conversation (that occurred a week ago during the day, and not at 9:00 at night) was legit. Guess not. How foolish of me...
Then she said, "Be sure to check out our website and let us know your questions."
And we finished up the call.
I had already been focused more on other candidates. After seeing Obama in the Democratic Debate, I decided he wasn't a powerful enough communicator to provide good representation on behalf of the U.S. in the eyes of foreign nations. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe what we really need is good ideas, and he seems to have plenty.
But now I've got something new to consider, and it hurts his campaign in my eyes.
It's the solicitations I've been getting. This last phone call really did Obama a disservice, because it happened late at night, and it was redundant. Absurdly redundant. I feel it was a waste of time, for all parties involved.
The Obama campaign is like a monster with a stick. You're trying to sleep, and every so often it creeps out from the shadows and pokes you. "Hey, don't forget me."
If Obama can't coordinate the lowest levels of volunteers on his campaign to do things right (and not be annoying and pointless), then how can we expect him to coordinate the lowest levels of government not to make our lives a living Hell?
People say, "It's not his fault. He's high up in the food chain, too high to make a difference."
Too high to make a difference? All he needs to do is delegate to good people, who delegate to more good people, right on down the line, until the bottom rung realizes that it is inappropriate to call at night, and it is inappropriate to pretend to be genuine and sincere when really you're just reading from a script.
Maybe the other candidates have this going on too, but they haven't made it apparent for me, so I say kudos to them.
Here's another theory. They say the more money you have, the more you'll fight to get elected. Well, what if some candidates respect us citizens enough to leave us alone and let us think for ourselves? I think (half-serious) that other candidates believe in me, and trust me to make the right decision. Obama just won't leave me alone, which means he doesn't trust me, and doesn't respect me. Why would I vote for someone like that?
It's like the unpopular kid wants to break into the cool clique so badly that he just keeps pestering everyone to let him join. "I can be cool, see? Look at me!" And it backfires. "Get lost, crazy."
Another theory I had was that I was too positive in previous encounters with Obama supporters, and they marked me down on their neat and tidy lists as being myself a supporter. I was just being polite. You've taught me a good lesson, Obama campaign. It pays to be rude.
Or how about this. Maybe they've got this plan to "go viral," and they hamper and pester whoever they think is trendiest. I don't know why they would think I'm trendy, but if that's the case, I'm honored, flattered, and disgusted. As William Shatner says, "Leave me the Hell alone!" I think political telemarketing should be made illegal.
Here's yet another theory. Maybe they think any press is good press. Here, see, their efforts to annoy (perhaps that was their intention after all) have caused me to write this post all about Obama! That's free publicity! Gee, I guess now that you've read this, you'll keep thinking about Obama until you forget the negatives and decide to vote for him. It's genius! No wonder he won Iowa. The mastermind... (Actually he does seem like a decent guy, I just hate the pestering).
Ok, all that aside, here's the oddity that I've been wondering about from the start. Is it cosmic irony?:
Bin Laden Osama
Osama Bin Laden
Posted by Guy at 1:55 PM
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
If you like Candidate A, and you like Candidate B,
and Candidate A is powerhouse, a sure bet,
and Candidate B is great, but seems to be overlooked,
why not vote for Candidate B?
Vote for your favorite underdog. A vote for the candidate whose victory is a foregone conclusion has less potential impact than a vote for an underdog.
Posted by Guy at 5:08 PM